UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION. 
BERKELEY,   CAL. 

E.  W.  HILGARD,  Director.  BULLETIN    No.   113. 


California  Walnuts,  Almonds,  and  Chestnuts; 


THEIR  COMPOSITION  AND  DRAFT  UPON  THE  SOIL. 


The  Bleaching  of  Nuts  by  Dipping. 


NOVEMBER.   1896. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  California,  Davis  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/californiawal1131135colb 


CALIFORNIA  WALNUTS,  ALMONDS,  AND  CHESTNUTS; 

THEIR  COMPOSITION  AND  DRAFT  UPON  THE  SOIL. 
By  George  E.  Colby. 


In  order  to  answer  the  many  inquiries  relating  to  the  composition  of 
California  nuts  and  to  the  fertilizers  required  to  replace  the  draft  upon 
the  soil,  this  Station,  last  year,  began  the  work  of  investigating  samples 
of  nuts  from  various  parts  of  the  State.  The  work  is  a  continuation  of 
that  begun  years  ago  upon  the  fruits  of  California;  special  bulletins  and 
the  yearly  reports  contain  the  records  of  that  study. 

The  following  varieties  of  walnuts,  almonds,  and  chestnuts  received 
from  growers  and  from  the  Foothill  Station  have  been  analyzed,  each 
variety  of  nut  and  its  parts  being  considered  separately.  The  physical 
analysis,  the  ash,  nitrogen  contents,  and  the  kinds  of  fertilizers  necessary 
to  replace  the  soil  ingredients  taken  away  by  the  nut  crops,  forms  the 
first  part  of  the  present  bulletin;  the  second  part  deals  briefly  with  the 
composition  of  the  kernels  of  the  nuts  with  reference  to  their  food 
values. 

WALNUTS. 

The  following  varieties  of  walnuts  were  examined: 

No.  18.  California  Softshell,  from  Geo.  W.  Ford,  Santa  Ana,  Orange 
County;  sample  received  September  12,  1895. 

No.  13.  California  Softshell,  from  A.  D.  S.  McCoy,  Pasadena,  Los 
Angeles  County;  sample  received  September  25,  1895. 

No.  14.  California  Softshell  (Santa  Barbara  Softshell),  from  the  Foct- 
hill  Experiment  Station,  Amador  County;  sample  received  September 
30,  1895. 

No.  16.  Bijou,  from  the  Foothill  Experiment  Station,  Amador 
County;  sample  received  October  8,  1895. 

No.  17.  California  Native  Black,  from  the  Foothill  Experiment  Sta- 
tion, Amador  County;  sample  received  October  8,  1895. 

No.  15.  American  Black  Walnut,  from  the  Foothill  Experiment  Sta- 
tion, Amador  County;  sample  received  September  30,  1895. 

The  above-named  walnuts  were  gathered  from  trees  upward  of  eight 
years  old,  grown  in  districts  which  well  represent  walnut-producing 
localities;  especially  is  this  the  case  with  those  from  Southern  California. 
The  Bijou  walnut  is  more  of  a  curiosity  than  anything  else,  still  it 
deserves  the  place  given  it. 


The  following  table  gives  the  results  of  the  physical  analysis,  and  the 
ash  and  nitrogen  content  of  the  parts  of  the  walnuts: 


Analyses  of  California  Walnuts. 


California  Softshell. 


SantaAna. 
No.  18. 


Pasadena. 
No.  13. 


Amador 

County. 

No.  14. 


Bijou. 


California 
Native 
Black. 


PHYSICAL  ANALYSIS. 

Entire  Fresh  Fruit — 
Average  weight  of  nuts.  ..-grams* 

Average  weight  of  hulls grams* 

Total  weight grams* 

Nuts,  proper ..per  cent 

Hulls .... —  per  cent 

Fresh  Nuts  (hulled) — 
Average  weight  of  kernels  ..grams* 

Average  weight  of  shells grams* 

Total  weight grams* 

Kernels percent 

Shells. _ percent 

ASH   AND   NITROGEN. 

Fresh  Nuts  (hulled)— 

Ash per  cent 

Nitrogen per  cent 

Fresh  Kernels — 

Ash ..   percent 

Nitrogen percent 

Fresh  Shells- 
Ash  percent 

Nitrogen per  cent 

Fresh  Hulls — 

Ash percent 

Nitrogen percent 


13.30 
20.00 
33.30 
40.00 
60.00 

6.00 

7.30 

13.30 

45.00 

55.00 


.78 
1.00 

1.16 

1.82 

.61 
.32 

1.15 
.11 


15.80 
17.50 
33.30 
47.50 
52.50 

6.65 

9.15 

15.80 

42.10 

57.90 


.64 
1.00 

1.05 
2.09 

.35 
.21 

1.83 

.28 


13.30 
11.70 
25.00 
45.00 
55.00 

5.10 

8.20 

13.30 

38.30 

61.70 


.83 
1.08 

1.18 

2.45 

.62 
.23 

2.21 
.17 


Amador 

County. 

No.  16. 


31.00 
49.00 
80.00 
37.50 
62.50 

8.34 
22.66 
31.00 
26.90 
73.10 


.68 

.84 

1.36 
2.40 

.41 

.20 

1.06 
.15 


Amador 
County. 
No.  17. 


14.10 
35.90 
50.00 
30.00 
70.00 

3.75 
10.35 
14.10 
25.90 
74.10 


.57 

.98 

1.36 
3.16 

.30 
.20 

.51 

.12 


*About  30  grams  are  equivalent  to  one  ounce. 

The  Bijou  walnut  is  very  large,  weighing  2.6  ounces  as  an  average,  or 
more  than  twice  the  weight  of  ordinary  walnuts.  While  the  hull  is 
also  quite  thick,  its  percentage  of  the  entire  fruit,  62.5,  is  not  very  much 
greater  than  that  of  the  Softshells,  and  even  less  than  that  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Native  Black.  The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  the  proportion  of 
shell  in  the  hulled  nut,  73.1%. 

The  hulls  of  the  California  Black  walnut  are  also  very  thick,  and 
comprise  a  greater  proportion  (seven  tenths)  of  the  entire  fruit,  than  in 
either  the  Bijou  or  the  Softshells.  The  nut  is  also  very  small,  and  has 
a  smaller  kernel  than  any  of  the  other  varieties  examined;  its  shell 
comprises  three  fourths  of  the  weight  of  the  nut. 

Between  the  three  Softshell  varieties  there  are  no  differences  other 
than  would  naturally  occur  in  samples  from  different  trees  or  localities. 
The  average  weights  are,  of  nuts,  14.1  grams;  hulls,  16.4  grams;  shells, 
8.2  grams,  and  of  kernels,  5.9  grams.  The  hulls  of  the  sample  from 
Santa  Ana  were  thickest,  but  the  nuts  were  the  same  in  weight  as  those 
from  the  Amador  Foothill  Station.  The  Pasadena  sample  excelled  the 
others  a  little  in  weight  of  nut  and  kernel,  though  the  proportion 
between  these  two  was  greater. 


—  5 


ALMONDS. 

The  following  varieties  of  almonds  were  examined: 

No.  5.  I  X  L,  from  G.  K.  Swingle,  Davis  ville,  Yolo  County;  sample 
received  September  13,  1895. 

No.  8.  I  X  L,  from  A.  T.  Hatch,  Suisun,  Solano  County;  sample 
received  September  16,  1895. 

No.  11.  I  X  L,  from  Miss  A.  C.  H.  Weber,  Skyland,  Santa  Cruz 
County;  sample  received  September  21,  1895. 

No.  2.  Papershell,  from  the  Foothill  Experiment  Station,  Amador 
County;  sample  received  August  31,  1895. 

No.  6.  Languedoc,  from  N.  W.  Blanchard,  Santa  Paula,  Ventura 
County;  sample  received  September  13,  1895. 

No.  9.  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  from  A.  T.  Hatch,  Suisun,  Solano  County; 
sample  received  September  16,  1895. 

No.  7.  Drake's  Seedling,  grown  at  the  Foothill  Experiment  Station, 
Amador  County;  sample  received  September  14,  1895. 

No.  1.  King's  Softshell,  grown  at  the  Foothill  Experiment  Station, 
Amador  County;  sample  received  August  31,  1895. 

No.  4.  Nonpareil,  grown  at  the  Foothill  Experiment  Station,  Amador 
County;  sample  received  August  31,  1895. 

No.  10.  Nonpareil,  from  A.  T.  Hatch,  Suisun,  Solano  County;  sample 
received  September  16,  1895. 

No.  3.  Marie  Dupreys,  grown  at  the  Foothill  Experiment  Station, 
Amador  County;  sample  received  August  31,  1895. 

The  following  table  contains  the  results  of  the  physical  analysis  and 
the  ash  and  nitrogen  of  the  several  parts  of  the  fruit: 


6 


bo 


>■ 

CJ 

K 


Q)    C 


cs  to 


3  <3„ 

OfiCO    rj       . 


©s-d-s-N 

ft  a>  cs  9  _• 

^  a  o5 


CO 


CObCg^ 


a)  a 


-a 


+>t* 


OS'O    rj    P    O 

£  <D  y  0>z 


1-5"  goo 


'CO 


ooooo 
lqooqq 
rt"  O  looo  co* 

NNH0O 


C5-H  O  ©  © 
CO*  CO*  ■*"  O  Tf* 


CO  ■* 


LO  CO 


©■* 

CO  1-H 


t~© 

H  CO 


HN  tH 


©©©©© 
©©©©© 

co*  i>"  ©  lo  lo 

HIMHOO 


©©©©© 
i-«as©©© 


CO 


co©o 
t^co 


©CO 
co  t~- 

CI  CM 

•*   © 

Tt<   1-1 

1—1 1—1 

F-lCO 

r— © 


©©©©© 
oppop 

l>"-CO  ©"  lOLO 

i-l  CM  CO  © 


©©©©© 
©Tt<  ©0  00 

co  ■*"  i>  i>  ci 

CO  © 


I-  00 


©  t» 

C0  00 


CO  i 


© 


©CO 

©T-H 


©  ©  ©  ©  © 

©  ©  ©  ©  © 

LO  rA  ©'  ©  © 

HrtCON 


ifliflOOO 
©CO©©© 

T-i  co  id  co'  t— 

CO  © 


CN  ©        Oir-4        OCO        CI  <M 
©  00         "*"*         00  CO         CO  i-J 

i-i  i-i  ci  — " 


©©©©© 

I— CO  LO  ©  © 

coobco*  ©©* 


Oi-*©  ©© 
©©  t—r-CO 
CJ  T-i  CO  ©  CO* 

LO  tP 


CO  F- 

1>-C1 

o© 

i-<Cl 

CI  LO 

i-l  00 

Tfl  CO 

CO  CO 

CM  CO 

CO 

CI 

co 
O 

O 

<1 


O 

u- 

M 
H* 

O 

o 

02 

H 

CO 

h" 
< 
r*5 
«**i 


,0 
to 

'53 

■H> 

.£ 
ho 


r=5 


o3  ga> 


Z       32 


ft<U  o    .S 

1^  I 


>— 1     l_l         . 

"*""*■"!  o  >>  • 

&0,c! -C  "£ """, 
fl  K!  *  3  6 


M.2  6 

Q 


©  ©  ©  ©  © 

©  i-<  r-1  ©  © 

LO  CD  H  lO  LO 

tH  ^  LO 


CO  00  o  ©  © 
CO  I>-  ©  lO  LO 
co*  d*  LO  Tf"  LO 

Tfl  LO 


L0  i-< 
©l-H 


r-co 

CJ  i-i 


LO  © 

00  CO 


Ci  LO 
CO  CI 


i— 1        i-i  C) 


©©©©© 
p©pp© 

co"i>"©©'© 

HCON 


00  CO  ©  ©© 

ccHotqif 

tH  rH  CO*  CO*  t^ 
©CO 


1-1 1*1 

CJ  CO 

©CI 
1— 1  ^*1 

©1-1 

COLO 

©  ■* 
©  © 

CI  CM 

CI  CO 

CO 

CO 

©©©©© 

NUJHOO 

co'  ©  ci  ©*  © 
co  r- 


©f©©© 

rt I  CO [  !>•  CO  l>; 
r-i  i-Jci  CO  © 

©CO 


LO  CO 
LO  i—l 

LOOO 

loos 

cot- 

00  CO 

(CO  i-l 
©CO 

i-Hd 

i-l  CO 

1—1 

CO 

©©©©  © 

CO  00  i-l  CO  t- 

CO^OOO 
CO  OS  CO  ©© 

CO  ©OSLO-* 
CO  t- 

wi        CO*©'© 

©  Tf< 

LOCR 

1-1 1*> 

00  00 

Tt*C0 

CO  i-l 

t-co 

1-H  1-1 

-«co 

©©©©© 

©  ©CO  ©© 

CO*  C0*  LO  ©  ©" 

OiO 


©©©©© 

CO  CO  ©  ©  © 

1-"  1-5  co*  ©*  ©' 

LO  LO 


00  ©        ©  LO 

©  t-      ©© 

CO*  1-*       co"  CO* 


itl  t-        CO  LO 
CO  CO        l-O 


CO 


CO 


*¥      V      Vfi        ■  ■?     i  -^ 

CO    CO    «>    £    £ 

£  2  S  a>  a> 

c3(3  d«0 

h     ^     h     L,     t| 

CJD&CbJDct)  S3 

aft 


02 

>* 

Hi 

< 

< 

< 

l-H 

02 
[H 

w 

Ph 


*   *  *  -^  -^ 

02  GO  02  fj    S 

Sa  c  a>  a» 

C  ci  y    q 

03  c3  c3  . 

h   In  ^  -    ^ 

i     i  i— «  ft* 


CO    CO 
-U  i — i 

I  ©  o 

^•53*33.^  S3 

<»  a>  a> 

■>■  0JD0JJ73 

fe<    03    03  if 

^  "-1  "-1  O 

no 

.s 


C  PI 

a>  .co 

o  o 

u  u 

cy  a) 


1=1  (3 

S-c    HI 

ftft 


O)   in 

o  o 

HI     >H 

a>  a> 

ftft 


-H>  -W 

PI  c 
a>  a> 
o  o 

HI  f- 
GJ    CJ 

ftft 


Kl 


ft 

o 

HI 

ft 

-  co 

CO-H 


S  « 

AO  O 
■§-•*•» 

^    -I     r-l  Hj 

'5'oJj'bC^- 
J-a3*S3.^ 

^2  a>  a>  "^  02 

>  03  03  J  ^  a 


P- 

53*^ 

bJj^s 


'■c 


PI 

CJ 

bO 
O 


I— I   ^3  ^  r-«  +J  ii?  •—  -(J  rfj -^    +3 
W  .pH  ^     02  "S  "^     CO  .T;  "^     CO  .rH 

<1^  ?^<i!z;  ?><!£  gf<1r^ 
Si        ^        * 


o 

E3 

o 

dj 

o 


•l-H 

CJ 
05 


ao 


3 
O 


—  7   - 

In  the  above  table  the  arrangement  is  in  the  order  of  lowest  to  highest 
total  fruit  (nuts  and  hulls),  a  general  division  of  light  and  heavy 
weights.  The  I  X  L  from  Davisville  thus  stands  as  the  lightest  of  all 
the  varieties,  though  its  nut  is  somewhat  heavier  than  that  of  King's 
Softshell.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Languedoc  almond  is  the  heaviest 
of  all,  though  its  nut  is  about  like  that  of  the  light-weight  varieties. 
The  I  X  L  almond  from  Skyland,  on  the  Santa  Cruz  Mountain,  has  also 
a  large  hull,  but  with  it  the  largest  nut  of  the  lot — nearly  three  times 
the  weight  of  several  of  the  others.  The  Papershell  of  the  Foothill 
Station  has  a  very  heavy  hull,  and  a  nut  as  small  as  that  of  the 
light-weight  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  the  proportion  between  the  hulls  and  nut 
being  greater  than  with  any  other  of  the  varieties. 

We  thus  see  that  although  an  almond  fruit  may  be  large  and  weighty 
as  it  comes  from  the  tree,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  nut  is  also 
large;  and,  unless  the  cleaned  product  from  a  tree  bearing  such  large 
fruit  is  proportionately  greater  it  may  not  be  more  profitable  than  that 
from  small-sized  fruits. 

In  examining  the  results  as  to  the  proportion  between  the  kernel  and 
the  shell,  we  find  that  the  heaviest  kernels  are  with  the  heavy-weight 
varieties,  with  the  exception  of  Drake's  Seedling,  which  falls  below  some 
of  the  light-weight  almonds,  and  the  Marie  Dupreys,  which  ranks  next 
to  the  Languedoc,  the  heaviest  kernel  of  all.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  in  the  small  I  X  L  from  Davisville  there  are  equal  weights  of  kernel 
and  shell. 

CHESTNUTS. 

The  following  chestnut  samples  were  received: 

No.  12.  Italian,  from  N.  W.  Blanchard,  Santa  Paula;  sample 
received  September  23,  1895. 

No.  19.  Italian,  from  J.  Cuneo,  Clinton,  Amador  County;  sample 
received  October  30,  1895. 

The  following  table  give  the  results  of  physical  analysis,  and  show 
also  the  ash  and  nitrogen  contents: 

Analyses  of  California  Chestnuts. 


Italian  Variety. 

Santa  Paula, 

Clinton, 

Ventura  County. 

Amador  County. 

No.  12. 

No.  19. 

28.50 

21.67 

21.50 

11.66 

50.00 

33.33 

57.00 

65.00 

43.00 

35.00 

24.08 

18.34 

4.42 

3.33 

28.50 

21.67 

84.50 

84.60 

15.50 

15.40 

physical  analysis. 

Entire  Fresh  Fruit — 
Average  weight  of  nuts grams- 
Average  weight  of  hulls . grams* 

Total  weight grams* 

Nuts percent 

Hulls per  cent 

Fresh  NiUs  (hulled) — 

Average  weight  of  kernels  . grams* 

Average  weight  of  shells grams* 

Total  weight ..grams* 

Kernels per  cent 

Shells per  cent 


—  8  — 
Analyses  of  California  Chestnuts — Continued. 


Italian  Variety. 


Santa  Paula, 

Ventura  County. 

No.  12. 


Clinton, 

Amador  County. 

No.  19. 


ASH  AND  NITROGEN. 

Fresh  Nuts  (hulled) — 

Ash -__ per  cent 

Nitrogen _. per  cent 

Fresh  Kernels — 

Ash per  cent 

Nitrogen per  cent 

Fresh  Shells — 

Ash per  cent 

Nitrogen per  cent 

Fresh  Hulls — 

Ash    _ per  cent 

Nitrogen per  cent 


.83 
1.02 

.75 
1.06 

.99 
.76 

1.22 
.50 


.80 
.59 

.83 
.65 

.63 
.26 

1.09 
.22 


*  About  30  grams  are  equivalent  to  one  ounce. 

Of  the  two  samples  of  chestnuts  examined,  that  from  Santa  Paula  is 
clearly  the  better,  for  it  has  a  heavier  nut  and  kernel,  though  the  pro- 
portion of  nut,  with  reference  to  the  entire  fruit,  is  greater  in  that  from 
Amador  County.  The  averages  of  the  two  samples,  taken  as  a  possible 
average  for  chestnuts  in  general,  are,  hulls,  16.58  grams;  nuts,  25.08 
grams;  shells,  3.88  grams;  and  kernels,  21.21  grams. 

NITROGEN    CONTENTS    OF    WALNUTS,  ALMONDS,   AND   CHESTNUTS. 

Referring,  again,  to  the  tables  above  where  the  nitrogen  is  reported 
for  nuts,  kernels,  shells,  and  hulls,  we  find  that  the  average  percentage 
for  hulled  nuts  stands  thus:  walnut,  1.02%;  almond,  1.64%;  chestnut, 
0.80%  of  nitrogen.  The  largest  part  of  this  is  contained  in  the  kernel, 
as  that  in  the  shell  of  the  walnut  is  but  one  sixth,  that  in  the  almond 
shell  one  twelfth,  and  that  of  the  chestnut  shell  one  tenth  of  the  whole 
nitrogen  of  the  hulled  nut. 

Comparing  this  with  the  only  European  data  we  have  (that  based 
upon  the  dried  kernels),  we  find  that  the  European  nitrogen-content 
agrees  closely  with  that  mentioned  above  for  the  California  nuts.  The 
difference  in  nitrogen  in  the  kernels  of  the  Pennsylvania  and  California 
chestnuts  is  only  a  trifle. 

ASH    INGREDIENTS    OF    WALNUTS,    ALMONDS,    AND    CHESTNUTS    (ENTIRE    NUT). 

The  ash  analyses  of  the  various  parts  of  the  fruit  of  the  California- 
grown  walnut,  almond,  and  chestnut  are  given  below  with  such  Euro- 
pean ash  analyses  as  are  available.  It  would,  of  course,  be  interesting 
to  have  also  the  analyses  of  the  ash  of  the  leaves,  twigs,  branches,  and 
roots  of  the  trees  (to  obtain  which  would  take  months  of  analytical 
work),  but  now  our  chief  care  is  to  look  to  that  part  of  the  tree  which 
is  taken  away  from  the  orchard — the  nut  proper — the  soil  ingredients  of 
which  must  eventually  be  replaced  by  the  addition  of  suitable  fertilizers. 
Doubtless  all  careful  orchardists  return  to  the  soil  the  hulls  and  the 
leaves,  so  that,  for  the  present,  the  composition  of  the  ashes  of  the  nut 
alone  and  not  of  the  entire  fruit  will  be  the  proper  gauge  of  the  replace- 
ment. 


—  9  — 


CO 
H 
P 
ft 
H 

02 
H 

a 
o 

p. 
ft 

«< 

of 

P 

O 

a 
p 

«J 

co~ 

H 
P 
15 

1-3 
< 


ft 

P 
O 

fa 

M 

P 

o 

fa 
o 

a 

co 
<1 

fa 

a 

H 

fa 
O 

ft 

o 


CO 

o 

fa 

o 
o 

p 
ft 

•< 

P 

o 


p 

CO 

<5 

<x> 

u 
P 
Ph 

CD 

.P 


co 
O 
P< 


O 

o 

bo 


CD 
O 
f-i 
CD 
P-i 


Total 


Less  Excess  of 
Oxygen  Due  to 
Chlorin 


Total 


Chlorin 


Silica 


Sulphuric  Acid  ... 


Phosphoric  Acid. 


t-COCO'* 
00  00  00  OS 

os  os  co*  as 

OO  CO  OO  CO 


cocooco 

l— I  i— I  i— I  T* 


o  coco  r^- 
pOSCO  CO 

ocsfflo 


"*  lOUTO  CO 
CO  CO  CI  00 

oo  co  co  oo 

CO' CO  CO  CO 


ooo*-* 


00  COCO  OO 

co  co  co  co 

CO  CO  CO  CO 
Co  CO  CO  CO 


t-  o  —•  r-  cm 

io  r-Tj<  iocn 

"co" 


^  r-T*  o 

CNNHN 


Ol  CO-^CO 
CO  CO  00  t-^ 

OO  OO  CO  CO 
CO  OO  CO  oo 


oo  t--*  o 

OOhN 


OOiOCO 

0005  00 
oo'os'os 

oooioo 


O-**  t-O 

•^i  CO  CO  CO 


COCN  t* 
OS  o  o 
CN     'tjJ 


CSf-THCN  CO 


<Nt}<00  i-H 
COCN  ^  IO 


NCOtNffl 
CN  rH  ■*  CO 


tH  i-H  »H  i-H        CN  CM 


COlOtfO 

CNi-ico 


t^i-H  CO  coco 
i-JCO  CN  CO  CN 
CN  t-i  CO  CN  tH 


i-J  CO  lO  CO  CO 


•*Hooia 
co  oo  oo 
o'oicN  id 


oo  iCCS 

00  CO  CO 
CO  CO  CO 


IT- co-*  co-* 
i-j  oo  t-<  Tti  r- 

t^t^COCN  CO 

CO  OH        tJI 


OCOCOCNCO 
COi-l  t— CO  CO 
oo'  oo"  t^  O  CO 
CN  T*  ■* 


OOOH 
r-t  lO  y->  CO 
CO  CO  fi  os 
CN  CN  CN 


OMCO 
CN-^CO 

00  00  OS 


Br.  Oxid  of  Man- 
ganese   


Peroxid    of   Iron 
and  Alumina 


Magnesia- 


Lime 


Soda 


Potash 


Percentage  of  Pure  Ash 
in  Fresh  Substance 


■- 

.r-i 
a 


Si 

eS 

Ph 

■O 
P 
o$ 

•a 

CD 

i— i 
i—i 

P 

P 

p 


^lOCOCN 

coco  ooi-h 


IO00  CN  OS 
COCN  i*  O 


00  CO  rf*  CO 
HHCNlO 


OS  CO  00  NO 

■m  cn  t— co  co 

CNCOi-i 


CO  00  OCDlO 
OS  t^  Tfi  CN  >T5 
iH      '  CO  Tf« 


COHNCO 
-*Tjc*00 


CO  T*  t- 

OH00 


CO        y-i 


00050K5 
"31  CO  CN  00  tH 

i-i  CD  ITS  T-i  CN 


CO— *  t*I  00  CO 
CN  COlO  CN  CO 

cn  oo  id  id 1^ 


T)l  lOHUS 

CN  O  O  i-i 

OS  OO*  r*"  O 


"f  r-t-- 

00tJ<  O 
CN 


CO  t- 00  OS  CO 
00  O  OO  !>;!>; 
CO  id  t»"  t>^  CD 
CN         "* 


OOCONOW 
T*  lOH  iH  00 

t-H  Tji  OS*  "*  CO 


CN  COCN  CO 
00  CO  lO  00 

oo"  -*"  I>  t^ 

CN  »H 


CO  CO  t>; 

t^coos" 


COCO  CN  t^ 
00  OS  00  CN 


OOlOi-f^CO 
CM  00  00  t-  cn; 
CNi-HCN 


OOCN  CO 

r-CN  os  oo 
»4  i-i  co 


CONH 
t-r-jCN 

CN        »-H 


CO  OS  00  ooo 
OS  CO  CN  00  O 

os  cn  oo'  r-^  co 

HrH(Nr»CO 


CO  CO  CO  CO  >o 
COOS  t-;  CO  CO 

cb  o  ■**"  -*ji  r^ 

COr-l  CO  COCN 


NNNCO 
OCOOCN 

id  oo"  os'  CN 

■^■^  CN  CO 


CO  OS  CO 
COCO  lO 
OOCOCN 
CO  lO 


ooooo 

IOCOCNJ  COlO 
"  1-1       "  i-i  O 


ooooo 

O  CN  rf  COO 
lOOC*  00  oo 


coooo 

CN  OS  t-i  CO 
OONCOiH 


ooo 

00  CO  oo 
CO  CO  CO 
i-iCN*r-i 


p 
ft 
p 
< 


CD 

I 


'a 

CD  7i 


o3 
CD 

a 
I 

p 
a 

S3 


c3 
CD 

& 

3  p 

WW 


p 
ft 
o 

p 
< 


CD 


P 
P 

I 

p 

O 

a 


H 
P 
ft 
H 
co 
H 

a 


p 


p 

CD 
.    Pi 

5  a 


T3 
CD 


3 
P 

co 

o 


P 

rP  CD 

*f  ^1   CD'P 

a  cd  p  p 


p 

o 
oa 


CD 

P=3 
CD   JS 


—  10  — 

Some  striking  results  are  shown  in  the  above  table.  We  find,  for 
instance,  that  the  potash  in  the  ash  of  the  hulled  walnut  comprises 
nearly  20%  of  the  whole  ingredients,  while  that  of  its  hull  alone  is 
nearly  four  times  as  much,  viz.,  77.8%.  It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  if 
the  hulls  of  the  walnut  are  not  returned  to  the  soil,  the  dominant  ingre- 
dient of  the  fertilizer  intended  for  replacement  must  be  potash;  while  if 
the  hulls  are  left  on  the  ground  the  dominant  ingredient  by  far  should 
be  nitrogen. 

The  ashes  of  the  parts  of  the  almond  and  chestnut,  on  the  whole, 
show  few  such  wide  differences  in  potash  as  that  above  given,  but  still 
they  differ  much  from  each  other. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  ash  of  the  kernel  of  the  walnut  is,  in 
weight,  more  than  twice  that  of  the  shell,  while  in  other  nuts  it  is  more 
nearly  equal.  Also,  that  in  the  kernel  of  the  walnut  and  almond  the 
phosphoric  acid  is  very  largely  predominant  over  the  potash,  while  the 
reverse  is  true  in  the  ash  of  the  shell.  In  the  walnut  kernel  the  phos- 
phoric acid  comprises  nearly  58%  of  its  ash.  In  the  ash  of  the  chestnut 
the  potash  is  by  far  the  predominant  ingredient  in  both  kernel  and  shell, 
and  is  largest  in  the  kernel.  The  same  is  true  of  the  European  chestnut, 
the  soda  of  the  European  chestnut  is  nearly  twenty  times  that  found  in 
our  samples.  The  European  walnut-meal  has  a  very  large  amount  of 
ash;  its  potash  is  greater  than  in  the  California  sample  of  walnuts,  but 
the  phosphoric  acid  is  still  predominant. 

SOIL    INGREDIENTS   WITHDRAWN   BY    NUTS. 


From  the  foregoing  tables,  relating  to  ash  and  nitrogen  content,  we  are 
enabled  to  calculate  the  amount  of  soil-ingredients  withdrawn  by  the 
walnut,  almond,  and  chestnut.  These  amounts,  expressed  in  pounds  for 
each  ingredient  per  1,000  pounds  of  fresh  nut,  both  hulled  and  not 
hulled,  and  for  a  full  crop  of  hulled  nuts,  are  given  in  the  following 
table.  We  also  append  some  data  relating  to  stone  fruits,  as  these 
approach  nearest  in  character  to  the  nuts: 

Soil  Ingredients  Extracted  by  Walnuts,  Almonds,  and  Chestnuts. 


Potash. 


Lime. 


Phos- 
phoric 
Acid. 


Total 

Ash. 


Nitro- 
gen. 


Nuts. 

Walnut  (hulled),  1,000  lbs.,  fresh 

Walnut  (hulled),  crop  of  4,000  lbs.  ... 
Walnut  (not  hulled),  1,000  lbs.,  fresh. 


Lbs. 
1.50 
6.00 

8.18 


Almond  (hulled),  1,000  lbs.,  fresh 5.49 

Almond  (hulled),  crop  of  2,000  lbs 

Almond  (not  hulled)  1,000  lbs.,  fresh . 


Chestnut  (hulled),  1,000  lbs.,  fresh 

Chestnut  (not  hulled),  1,000  lbs.,  fresh 

Stone  Fruits. 

Prunes,  1,000  lbs.,  fresh  fruit 

Prunes,  crop  of  30,000  lbs 


Apricots,  1,000  lbs.,  fresh  fruit. 
Apricots,  crop  of  30,000  lbs 


Olives  (European),  1,000  lbs.,  fresh  fruit 
Olives,  crop  of  2,200  lbs 


10.98 
9.95 

3.72 
3.67 


2.66 
79.70 

2.83 
84.98 

8.55 

18.81 


Lbs. 
1.81 
7.24 
1.55 

1.72 
3.44 
1.04 

.71 

1.20 


.13 
3.90 

.18 
5.40 

2.32 
5.10 


Lbs. 

2.78 
11.12 

1.47 

4.33 
8.66 
2.04 

1.89 
1.58 


.53 
15.95 

.71 
21.38 

1.18 
2.59 


Lbs. 
7.50. 
30.00 
12.98 

15.00 
30.00 
17.29 

8.20 
9.52 


4.03 
120.90 

5.16 
154.80 

94.63* 

208.18 


Lbs. 
10.20 
40.80 
5.41 

16.40 

32.80 

7.01 

8.00 
6.40 


1.48 
44.40 

2.29 
68.70 

5.85 
12.86 


*80.7  lbs.  of  which  is  silex,  and  costs  nothing. 


-  11  - 

In  the  total  quantity  of  mineral  matters  withdrawn  from  the  soil  the 
almond  leads  with  15  pounds,  the  chestnut  comes  next  with  8.20  pound-. 
and  the  walnut  last  with  7.50  pounds  in  1,000  pounds  of  the  hulled 
nut.  These  figures  become  somewhat  changed  when  referred  to  the 
entire  fruit.  The  stone  fruits  fall  much  below  the  above  in  total  ash, 
excepting  the  olive,  the  ash  of  which,  however,  is  largely  silica  (nearly 
eight  ninths),  an  ingredient  so  plentifully  distributed  in  all  soils  that 
it  is  of  no  pecuniary  value. 

Potash. — The  data  for  hulled  nuts  shows  that  almonds  withdraw  5.49 
pounds  of  potash,  as  against  3.70  pounds  for  chestnuts  and  1.50  pounds 
for  walnuts,  for  1,000  pounds  of  fresh  nuts;  however,  when  these  figures 
are  referred  to  the  entire  fruit,  the  walnut  and  almond  take  about  the 
same  quantity,  8  to  10  pounds,  or  nearly  three  times  as  much  as  the 
entire  chestnut;  with  the  exception  of  the  olive,  the  stone  fruits  do  not, 
on  the  whole,  nearly  approach  the  latter  figures  for  equal  weights. 

Phosphoric  Acid. — The  almond  again  leads  in  this  ingredient,  with- 
drawing 4.33  pounds,  the  hulled  nut  of  the  walnut  taking  2.78  pounds, 
and  the  chestnut  only  1.89  pounds  per  1,000  pounds  of  fresh  nuts. 
These  results  are  again  all  materially  changed  when  referred  to  the 
entire  fruit.  For  equal  weights,  the  stone  fruits  appear  to  be  very  much 
less  exhaustive  upon  the  phosphoric  acid  than  the  nuts. 

Nitrogen. — Again  the  almond  leads  with  16.4  pounds,  not  nearly 
approached  by  the  walnut,  with  10.20  pounds,  or  the  chestnut  with  8.00 
pounds  of  nitrogen  withdrawn  per  1,000  pounds  of  fresh  hulled  nuts. 
These  figures,  while  materially  altered  by  referring  them  to  the  entire 
fruit,  are  still  very  high,  and  indicate  great  draft  upon  the  soil — 
several  times  more  than  the  prune  or  apricot.  The  olive  takes  up  a 
great  deal  of  nitrogen,  so  that  when  this  fruit  is  used  for  pickling  its 
nitrogen  must  be  replaced  sooner  or  later  by  fertilization;  when  the 
fruit  is  used  for  oil  alone,  its  nitrogen  can  nearly  all  go  back  to  the  soil 
in  the  pomace,  as  the  oil,  the  part  of  the  olive  then  sold,  takes  up  no 
nitrogen.  On  the  other  hand,  nuts  proper  carry  away  all  of  their  large 
amount  of  this  material,  which  consequently  must  be  replaced  if  paying 
crops  are  to  be  continuously  produced. 

A  more  directly  useful  comparison  of  the  above  data  is  obtained  when 
we  base  the  calculations  upon  the  actual  crops  yielded  by  nuts,  prunes, 
apricots,  and  olives.  For  this  purpose,  crops  of  fresh  prunes  and 
apricots  are  rated  at  30,000  pounds,  and  olives  at  2,200  pounds  per 
acre,  crops  of  clean  walnuts  at  4,000  pounds,  and  of  almonds  at  2,000 
pounds  per  acre.  So  little  is  known  of  the  yield  of  chestnuts  in  this 
State  that  it  is  hardly  safe  to  offer  any  data  relating  to  them.  With 
these  figures  we  readily  calculate  that  the  nitrogen  taken  away  by  a  crop 
of  walnuts  and  of  almonds  amounts  respectively  to  40.8  pounds  and 
32.8  pounds;  on  the  other  hand,  that  of  a  prune  crop  is  44.4  pounds,  and 
of  an  apricot  crop,  68.7  pounds;  the  olive  crop  takes  but  12.9  pounds  of 
nitrogen. 

This  heavy  nitrogen-draft  by  the  nut  crop  is  further  forcibly  illus- 
trated when  we  carry  the  calculations  to  the  other  soil  ingredients. 
Of  these  we  find  the  nut  crop  to  remove  but  a  small  fraction  (one  tenth 
to  one  thirteenth)  as  much  of  potash  as  prune  and  apricot  crops,  and 
only  as  much  as  the  olive  crop;  nearly  one  half  as  much  phosphoric 
acid  is  taken  up  by  nut  crops  as  by  those  of  the  prune  and  apricot, 
and  all  these  stand  about  alike  in  lime  taken  away. 

Thus  it  appears  that  when  nut  orchards  need  fertilizers,  the  first  call 


—  12  — 

will  ordinarily  be  for  those  rich  in  nitrogen;  the  more  so  as  California 
soils  are  not  usually  highly  supplied  with  this  valuable  ingredient. 
As  phosphoric  acid  is  almost  always  in  limited  supply  in  the  soils  of  the 
State,  it  seems  that  phosphatic  fertilizers  will  be  demanded  by  nut 
orchards,  but  this  need  will  probably  not  arise  as  soon  for  them  as  for 
the  prune  and  apricot  orchards.  If  the  hulls  of  the  walnut  and 
almonds  are  returned  to  the  orchards,  the  demand  for  potash  will  be 
kept  back  for  many  crops,  as  potash  is  so  plentifully  distributed  through- 
out the  most  of  California  soils. 

Chestnuts  do  not  withdraw  as  much  of  potash  and  phosphoric  acid  as 
do  the  other  nuts;  but  they  seem  to  demand  that  the  soil  shall  contain 
sulphates,  which  are  found  in  surprising  amounts  in  the  kernel  of 
the  nut. 

FOOD    VALUE    OF    NUTS. 

Composition  of  the  Kernels  of  Walnuts,  Almonds,  and  Chestnuts. — The 
whole  table  of  figures  setting  forth  the  results  of  the  work  upon  the 
composition  of  the  kernel  of  these  nuts  in  its  various  conditions,  i.  e., 
the  fresh,  the  air-dried,  and  the  water-free  kernel,  is  rather  too  large  to 
produce  in  this  bulletin.  But  full  and  detailed  analyses  of  all  the  nuts 
above  named  will  appear  in  the  next  Station  Report. 

The  following  summary  is,  however,  given,  together  with  analyses  of 
European-grown  nuts,  the  average  of  eight  analyses  of  Pennsylvania- 
grown  chestnuts,  and  some  analyses  of  stone  fruits.  The  results  are 
based  upon  the  water-free  substance,  and  for  the  present  purpose  serve 
to  show  also  how  much  the  various  ingredients  vary;  in  the  marketable 
condition  of  these  nuts,  the  walnuts  contain  about  2.50%,  the  almonds 
5.0%,  and  the  chestnuts  6.0%  of  water. 

Peoximate  Composition  of  the  Water-Fkee  Kernel. 


&5 

c 
ct 


> 

c 


T 
O 


Carbohydrates. 


CT 


Walnuts. 

California-grown — California  Softshell 

California-grown — Bij  ou 

*European-grown — English  walnut  ... 

California  IN  ative  Black 

California-grown — American  Black .  _  _ 


Almonds. 

California-grown — different  varieties  ..  ... 
*European-grown — sweet  almond 

Chestnuts. 

California-grown — "  Italian  " 

t  Pennsylvania-grown — different  varieties 
*European-gro wn — average _ . 

Stone  Fruits. 
California  prunes  _.. 


California  apricots 
^European  olives.  - 


11 
1 


23 
11 


7 

/o 

1.44 
1.71 
2.13 
1.77 

2.06 

7 

16°.99 
18.84 
17.17 
25.56 
31.06 

2.14 
3.13 

22.02 
25.56 

1.68 
2.89 
3.54 

11.55 
10.99 
11.29 

2.50 

4.00 

3.33 

6.66 

4.05 

2.61 

7 

/o 

2.62 
1.50 
6.47 
1.90 
1.65 


3.23 
6.93 


3.10 
3.13 
3.32 


7 

/o 

13.87 

11.88 
8.28 

14.71 
5.93 


14.99 
7.64 


78.45 
71.76 
79.03 


93.50 


90.01 


27.61 


7 

65.08 
66.04 
65.95 
56.06 
59.30 


57.62 
56.74 


4.22 
11.63 

2.82 


65.73 


*K6nig.  t  Penn.  Agr.  Expt.  Station  Bull.  16,  July,  1891. 


—  13  — 

The  chief  ingredient  of  the  walnut  and  almond  kernel  is  the  fat  (oil), 
of  which  in  the  walnut  there  is  about  65.0%,  and  in  the  almond  nearly 
58.0%  for  both  the  European  and  the  California-grown  nuts;  this  is 
nearly  equal  to  the  oil  content  of  the  olive — 65.73%.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  fat  (oil)  of  the  chestnut  kernel  is  but  a  small  fraction  of  the 
meat,  viz.,  from  about  3.0%  in  the  European  to  about  11.63%  in  the 
Pennsylvania  chestnut.  The  next  largest  constituent  of  the  almond 
and  walnut  kernel  is  the  protein,  or  flesh-forming  ingredients — in  the 
almond,  upward  of  20.0%  to  25.0%,  and  in  the  ordinary  walnut,  about 
17.0%;  in  the  chestnut  there  is  only  about  11.0%,  or  about  one  half  that 
of  the  other  nuts.  About  three  fourths  of  the  chestnut  kernel  is  made 
up  of  starch,  sugar,  dextrin,  etc. — u nitrogen-free  extract"  ingredients, 
which,  like  the  fat,  furnish  fuel  to  the  body,  though  less  economically. 

Of  the  stone  fruits  the  prune  and  apricot,  like  the  chestnut,  are 
largely  made  up  of  carbohydrates  (sugar,  etc.),  and  contain  considerably 
less  protein  than  the  chestnut  kernel,  and  from  three  to  six  times  less  of 
that  ingredient  than  the  almond  or  walnut  kernel. 

The  above  figures  are  interesting  among  themselves,  and  become  of 
more  value  when  considering  the  food  values  of  these  nuts. 

All  authorities  agree  upon  the  fact  that  nuts  are  a  highly  concentrated 
form  of  food;  caution  should,  therefore,  be  followed  in  their  use.  Walnuts 
and  almonds  possess  a  higher  nutritive  value  than  even  the  grains;  and, 
as  compared  with  fruits,  they  rank  high  in  food  value,  being  the  true 
seed  only  and  not  made  up  of  fleshy  coverings,  as  the  apple,  pear,  etc.; 
they,  therefore,  have  less  water  and  a  higher  nutritive  value  generally, 
weight  for  weight. 

Where,  in  a  rational  dietary  system,  other  forms  of  food  lack  protein 
or  albuminoids  and  fat,  the  walnut  and  the  almond  will  supply,  in  con- 
centrated shape,  those  needs;  the  chestnut,  with  its  high  content  of 
starch,  sugar,  dextrin,  etc.,  may,  on  the  other  hand,  be  used  as  a  substitute 
for  the  cereals. 

Aside  from  the  chestnut,  the  edible  nuts  are  looked  upon  as  luxuries, 
and  are  quite  largely  used  as  such;  the  chestnut,  on  the  other  hand,  has 
for  a  long  time  been  a  staple  article  of  food  in  Southern  Europe. 

Increased  production  will  doubtless  remove  the  obstacle  of  high  cost 
of  nuts  to  the  consumer,  and  in  time,  if  demand  arises,  may  bring  the 
chestnut,  at  least,  into  the  list  of  staple  foods  in  this  country. 


—  14  — 

THE  BLEACHING  OE  NUTS  BY  DIPPING. 

By  E.  W.  HlLGARD. 


The  commercial  requirement,  that  the  shells  of  nuts  offered  for  sale 
shall  have  a  light  and  uniform  tint,  has  caused  the  process  of  sulphur- 
ing, so  generally  applied  to  drying  fruits,  to  be  applied  to  them  also. 
This  process,  however,  is  not  only  often  unsatisfactory  as  regards  the 
result  desired,  but  even  the  strongest  partisans  of  fruit-sulphuring  admit 
that  almonds  and  walnuts  are  frequently  injured  in  their  flavor  by  the 
needful  prolonged  treatment  in  the  sulphur-box.  This  is  inevitable  so 
long  as  the  latter  is  charged  with  a  column  of  trays,  of  which  the  lower 
portion  is  necessarily  oversulphured,  if  those  at  the  upper  end  are  to 
receive  any  effect  at  all.  The  result  is  that  the  shell  of  the  fruit  below 
is  corroded  ("rotted"),  and  the  flavor  of  the  kernel  is  lost.  To  some 
extent  this  can  be  avoided  by  using  only  a  few  trays;  but  in  any  case 
the  process  is  very  unsatisfactory  when  the  fruit  is  spotted  by  rain  or 
otherwise. 

At  the  suggestion  of  several  large  growers  of  nuts,  experiments  have 
been  undertaken  in  the  laboratory  of  this  Station  for  the  purpose  of 
devising  more  satisfactory  methods,  and  securing  uniformity  of  bleach- 
ing action;  which,  of  course,  is  best  accomplished  by  using  a  bleaching 
dip  of  definite  strength,  into  which  the  nuts  can  be  dipped  for  a  definite 
time. 

Of  cheap  and  readily  procurable  bleaching  agents  suitable  for  the 
purpose,  bleaching  powder  (also  called  chlorid  of  lime)  and  bisulphite 
of  lime  (used  in  bleaching  sugarcane  juices)  are  most  available.  Our 
experiments  thus  far  appear  to  show  that  the  corresponding  soda  com- 
pounds act  more  rapidly  and  satisfactorily;  the  soda-chlorin  compound 
is  easily  obtained  from  the  commercial  bleaching  powder,  by  mixing 
the  solution  with  a  proper  proportion  of  sal  soda.  The  bisulphite  of 
lime  is  always  obtainable  at  New  Orleans. 

The  chlorid  of  lime  or  soda,  used  alone,  is  apt  to  continue  to  act  for 
some  time  in  the  shells  of  almonds,  softening  them,  and  turning  them 
a  whitish  and  rather  sickly  tint,  besides  retaining  a  slight  mawkish 
odor.  This  can  be  prevented,  and  a  bright,  natural  color  assured  by 
following  up  with  a  dip  of  the  bisulphite,  or  by  very  light  sulphuring. 
It  should,  of  course,  be  understood,  that  badly  stained  nuts,  to  which 
pulp  of  the  outer  shell  adheres,  can  and  should  be  cleaned  preparatory 
to  bleaching;  best  in  revolving  drums,  either  with  water  alone  or,  more 
effectually,  with  water  containing  from  3%  to  5%  of  sal  soda. 

Very  satisfactory  results  have  been  obtained  by  us  by  operating  as 
follows:  The  nuts,  placed  in  a  cane  or  splint  basket  (such  as  Chinese 
use  for  carrying),  are  dipped  for  about  five  minutes  into  a  solution  con- 
taining, to  every  50  gallons  of  water,  6  pounds  of  bleaching  powder 
and  12  pounds  of  sal  soda.  They  are  then  rinsed  with  a  hose,  and, 
after  draining,  again  dipped  into  another  solution  containing  1%  of 
bisulphite  of  lime;  after  the  nuts  have  assumed  the  desired  tint,  again 
rinse  with  water  and  then  dry.  Instead  of  the  second  dipping,  the 
nuts  may  be  sulphured  for  ten  or  fifteen  minutes. 


—  15  — 

The  cost  of  50  gallons  of  the  chlorin  dip  will  be  about  40  cents;  the 
same  bulk  of  the  bisulphite  dip,  probably  considerably  less;  the  time 
occupied  in  handling  one  batch  (two  dips),  twelve  to  fifteen  minutes. 

Practice  on  a  large  scale  will  doubtless  show  some  advantageous  modi- 
fications of  the  above  prescription;  but  the  perfect  ease  with  which  a 
definite  result  can  be  secured  by  solutions  of  definite  strength,  acting 
under  the  eyes  of  the  operator,  seems  to  commend  it  for  general  use  in 
preference  to  the  crude  method  of  the  sulphur-box.  Of  course,  nuts 
that  are  cracked  open  and  therefore  accessible  to  the  solutions  would  be 
likely  to  be  injured,  but  not  more  so  than  they  are  by  the  sulphur  fumes. 
For  English  walnuts,  either  of  the  two  bleaching  dips  may  be  used 
alone. 


